Tuesday, August 30, 2011
http://www.timesrepublican.com/page/content.detail/id/542386/Iowa-Secretary-of-State-advocates-voter-ID-bill.html?nav=5005
Iowa Secretary of State advocates voter ID bill
"You have to show an ID before you get on an airplane, you have to show an ID before you open a checking account, and if you like beer you have to show ID before you buy a beer so why not when you vote?" Schultz said.
The usual lies.
Schultz said in addition to a photo ID, he would like to see all counties have access to an electronic database called a poll book, that would enable election officials to swipe an ID, like a credit card, and determine if a person has voting rights.
Schultz said he did not know the added cost of providing free ID or pollbooks, but did not feel like the expense would be prohibitive.
How much will the free ID's cost? Here in Indiana the average cost of a free ID is $12.
Schultz's plan, to make voting contingent on swiping a card, is the next step; it's where Voter ID is headed. What could possibly go wrong?
Iowa Secretary of State advocates voter ID bill
"You have to show an ID before you get on an airplane, you have to show an ID before you open a checking account, and if you like beer you have to show ID before you buy a beer so why not when you vote?" Schultz said.
The usual lies.
Schultz said in addition to a photo ID, he would like to see all counties have access to an electronic database called a poll book, that would enable election officials to swipe an ID, like a credit card, and determine if a person has voting rights.
Schultz said he did not know the added cost of providing free ID or pollbooks, but did not feel like the expense would be prohibitive.
How much will the free ID's cost? Here in Indiana the average cost of a free ID is $12.
Schultz's plan, to make voting contingent on swiping a card, is the next step; it's where Voter ID is headed. What could possibly go wrong?
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Fisking Hicks:
"Joe R. Hicks: When did carrying an ID become ‘a white thing’?", found here http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22122
When I used to practice, we had a useful habit (1), when receiving a filing from opposing counsel, of putting together a "lie list", a list of the false statements in the filing.
Not every false statement is always a lie; honest mistakes happen. But calling it a lie list is useful shorthand. Here's a list of some of the false statements in Joe Hick's Orange County Register article. Hicks sounds like someone I would agree with much of the time, but not here. The voter ID debate has made for strange bedfellows.
1. "when did showing identification, something just about every American does several times in the course of a day..." Here the false statement is buried in a clause, so the overall sentence might be true, or at least not false. But I want to make a note of it; it sets the tone for the article. It's a quarter to five here. I haven't shown an ID to anybody today. Does that make me UnAmerican? When I go the bar tonight - it's Tuesday, live Irish music night - I won't be carded. I'll ride my bike there and my city does not require a bike riding license or a pedestrian license. In practice, our local cops don't stop bike riders. In a typical day, I don't cross international borders, enter a federal courthouse, get a traffic ticket, go to a bar where they don't know me, or do anything else that might call for a government-issued photo ID.
2. "In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo ID, or in some cases other official forms of ID, and that this does not violate their constitutional rights." That's false; Crawford v Marion County was decided on procedure and did not decide the merits.
3. "Further, lawsuits challenging voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia were tossed from court because plaintiffs couldn't produce a single individual who was prevented from voting by these laws." That might be true about Georgia. I think the case has been refiled? That's false about Indiana. In both the state and federal cases, plaintiffs were found to have standing. In the U S Supreme Court case, the court had my amicus brief; I am that voter. In the state case, the Court rejected my motion to intervene, so they were well aware that real people's rights were at stake.
4. "The protests that these laws disenfranchise black voters does give rise to the question, 'Why is producing ID such an undue burden for black voters – but isn't presumably a burden on other races?'" That's a false presumption. It doesn't follow either logically or empirically. I happen to be white. I happen to be a conservative and have run for office as a Republican, but I am also burdened when governments violate civil rights. In my neighborhood, on the lower east side of Indianapolis, blacks have their civil rights violated more often and more harshly, but we all suffer.
5. "Certainly the NAACP, and Jackson, must be aware that state and local governments make identification cards available for free to anyone who requests one." That's false. In Indiana, for example, 80% of voters aren't eligible for the "free" ID's. And even those require a birth certificate, which cost on average $12. I was told that I couldn't get a license without a birth certificate or a birth certificate without a license. Hiring a lawyer to straighten that out out cost me a lot more than $12. At the local branch in the hood, the majority of people who go there to get ID are turned away. If I have to deal with BMV I find it useful to drive ten miles to the suburbs to get slightly better service.
6, 7. "where ID is also required – checking into a hotel anywhere in America, cashing a check, making a major purchase with a credit card, buying alcohol if you appear to be under-age, or getting on an airplane?"
The airplane myth is the big lie of voter ID articles. It gets repeated so often some people will start to think it is true. I've seen it twice just today. I have not yet checked out the hotel example, but I'm not aware of any statute anywhere that requires ID for hotels. My bank cashes my checks without ID when the teller knows me, and no statute stops them from doing so. Yesterday when I reopened a checking account my ID was checked - similar to how we show ID when registering to vote; voter registration being an authorized procedure under my state's constitution. I'm told the PATRIOT act requires the ID for new accounts; I haven't looked at the legislation myself.
8. "The question begging for an answer is why only 29 states have voter ID requirements? Shouldn't all states require you to produce evidence that you are who you say you are before you cast a vote?" The lie here is only implied, and not overt, since the sentence is in the form of a question. But all states require evidence that you are who you say you are. Where I vote, the evidence is that my name is in the voter rolls, at the address I told them, my signature matches, and they know me.
The last time I went to vote, earlier this year, I was asked for ID and said no. The clerk rolled his eyes, said something like "every freakin' time" and let me have a regular ballot. I've been suing them over not letting me vote since 2006.
So, on a quick read, I only found 8lies untruths; I expected a top ten. The article has many statements of opinion I don't agree with, but that's not the purpose of a lie list.
"Joe R. Hicks: When did carrying an ID become ‘a white thing’?", found here http://electionlawblog.org/?p=22122
When I used to practice, we had a useful habit (1), when receiving a filing from opposing counsel, of putting together a "lie list", a list of the false statements in the filing.
Not every false statement is always a lie; honest mistakes happen. But calling it a lie list is useful shorthand. Here's a list of some of the false statements in Joe Hick's Orange County Register article. Hicks sounds like someone I would agree with much of the time, but not here. The voter ID debate has made for strange bedfellows.
1. "when did showing identification, something just about every American does several times in the course of a day..." Here the false statement is buried in a clause, so the overall sentence might be true, or at least not false. But I want to make a note of it; it sets the tone for the article. It's a quarter to five here. I haven't shown an ID to anybody today. Does that make me UnAmerican? When I go the bar tonight - it's Tuesday, live Irish music night - I won't be carded. I'll ride my bike there and my city does not require a bike riding license or a pedestrian license. In practice, our local cops don't stop bike riders. In a typical day, I don't cross international borders, enter a federal courthouse, get a traffic ticket, go to a bar where they don't know me, or do anything else that might call for a government-issued photo ID.
2. "In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo ID, or in some cases other official forms of ID, and that this does not violate their constitutional rights." That's false; Crawford v Marion County was decided on procedure and did not decide the merits.
3. "Further, lawsuits challenging voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia were tossed from court because plaintiffs couldn't produce a single individual who was prevented from voting by these laws." That might be true about Georgia. I think the case has been refiled? That's false about Indiana. In both the state and federal cases, plaintiffs were found to have standing. In the U S Supreme Court case, the court had my amicus brief; I am that voter. In the state case, the Court rejected my motion to intervene, so they were well aware that real people's rights were at stake.
4. "The protests that these laws disenfranchise black voters does give rise to the question, 'Why is producing ID such an undue burden for black voters – but isn't presumably a burden on other races?'" That's a false presumption. It doesn't follow either logically or empirically. I happen to be white. I happen to be a conservative and have run for office as a Republican, but I am also burdened when governments violate civil rights. In my neighborhood, on the lower east side of Indianapolis, blacks have their civil rights violated more often and more harshly, but we all suffer.
5. "Certainly the NAACP, and Jackson, must be aware that state and local governments make identification cards available for free to anyone who requests one." That's false. In Indiana, for example, 80% of voters aren't eligible for the "free" ID's. And even those require a birth certificate, which cost on average $12. I was told that I couldn't get a license without a birth certificate or a birth certificate without a license. Hiring a lawyer to straighten that out out cost me a lot more than $12. At the local branch in the hood, the majority of people who go there to get ID are turned away. If I have to deal with BMV I find it useful to drive ten miles to the suburbs to get slightly better service.
6, 7. "where ID is also required – checking into a hotel anywhere in America, cashing a check, making a major purchase with a credit card, buying alcohol if you appear to be under-age, or getting on an airplane?"
The airplane myth is the big lie of voter ID articles. It gets repeated so often some people will start to think it is true. I've seen it twice just today. I have not yet checked out the hotel example, but I'm not aware of any statute anywhere that requires ID for hotels. My bank cashes my checks without ID when the teller knows me, and no statute stops them from doing so. Yesterday when I reopened a checking account my ID was checked - similar to how we show ID when registering to vote; voter registration being an authorized procedure under my state's constitution. I'm told the PATRIOT act requires the ID for new accounts; I haven't looked at the legislation myself.
8. "The question begging for an answer is why only 29 states have voter ID requirements? Shouldn't all states require you to produce evidence that you are who you say you are before you cast a vote?" The lie here is only implied, and not overt, since the sentence is in the form of a question. But all states require evidence that you are who you say you are. Where I vote, the evidence is that my name is in the voter rolls, at the address I told them, my signature matches, and they know me.
The last time I went to vote, earlier this year, I was asked for ID and said no. The clerk rolled his eyes, said something like "every freakin' time" and let me have a regular ballot. I've been suing them over not letting me vote since 2006.
So, on a quick read, I only found 8
http://www.idchief.net.ph/
sells fake ID's. the ad came up when i was reading an article on voter ID.
sells fake ID's. the ad came up when i was reading an article on voter ID.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/moveonorg_to_pay_43k_fine_for_inadvertent_campaign_finance_violations.php
moveon.org had a software glitch and some of their campaign reports didn't send. for a budget of 1/2 million, $43K is a doable expense of doing business. but for some groups, $43K fines for violations with no mens rea sends a chilling effect.
moveon.org is a leftist group associated with the soros faction and the "reform" faction. petard, hoist. it'll be interesting to see if people are for or against these fines when it's their own ox being Gored.
moveon.org had a software glitch and some of their campaign reports didn't send. for a budget of 1/2 million, $43K is a doable expense of doing business. but for some groups, $43K fines for violations with no mens rea sends a chilling effect.
moveon.org is a leftist group associated with the soros faction and the "reform" faction. petard, hoist. it'll be interesting to see if people are for or against these fines when it's their own ox being Gored.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
My amicus brief in NOM v McKee, the one rejected by the first circuit, is here
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0L1j6Odr6DgJ:ballots.blogspot.com/2010/08/kinda-long-i-havent-gotten-shorter-link.html+soapbox+mckee+nom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
I just learned something rather distressing. Blogger isn't showing my whole blog, just about the past 8 months. There are 7 years of posts here, somewhere.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0L1j6Odr6DgJ:ballots.blogspot.com/2010/08/kinda-long-i-havent-gotten-shorter-link.html+soapbox+mckee+nom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com
I just learned something rather distressing. Blogger isn't showing my whole blog, just about the past 8 months. There are 7 years of posts here, somewhere.
draft:
A significant loss in the first district in NOM v McKee.
The court's analysis was similar to that in WVRTL v Tennent, discussed here last week.
In a multi-issue case about disclosure and political committees, the court upheld Maine's disclaimer statute under the apparent authority of Citizens United.
This is a case where the First Circuit denied my motion to submit an amicus brief, without saying why.
The stuff they got wrong is exactly what I covered in my brief.
In the West Virginia case, my amicus brief on the same topic was admitted, but the opinion neglects to mention or discuss it, while listing the other amici. There had been a change of judge at some point during the case, and I'm not sure the new judge read my brief.
In both cases, the court first said that the standard of review in disclaimer case is "exacting scrutiny" (that is, a very permissive standard,) rather than strict scrutiny.
So they are saying that Citizens United overruled McIntyre and ACLF and Watchtower on this point, which is a possible interpretation, although CU never says it is doing this.
They then conclude that disclaimer censorship furthers some important government interests - which it does - and uphold the statutes.
In my view, CU is better read narrowly, as requiring disclaimers for previously banned speech by corporations,and not overturing 50 years of precedents based on Talley, such as Tornillo and Wooley. But CU is ambiguous on this point,and I could be wrong.
Part of what I find objectionable about these cases is not just that they come to what I think is the wrong conclusion, but they do so with little analysis or awareness of the controlling precedents on the other side.
"Finally, we agree with the district court that 'Citizens United has effectively disposed of any attack on Maine's attribution and disclaimer requirements.'... The disclaimer and attribution requirements are, on their face, unquestionably constitutional." Footnote
It's the unquestionably that irks me,since they are wrong, I submitted a brief showing where they are wrong,and they chose to put it in the trash.
I have not read the plaintiffs' briefs, so I don't know how competently the issue was before the court.
I am aware that there is a winging tone to this post,and I should re-write it.
A significant loss in the first district in NOM v McKee.
The court's analysis was similar to that in WVRTL v Tennent, discussed here last week.
In a multi-issue case about disclosure and political committees, the court upheld Maine's disclaimer statute under the apparent authority of Citizens United.
This is a case where the First Circuit denied my motion to submit an amicus brief, without saying why.
The stuff they got wrong is exactly what I covered in my brief.
In the West Virginia case, my amicus brief on the same topic was admitted, but the opinion neglects to mention or discuss it, while listing the other amici. There had been a change of judge at some point during the case, and I'm not sure the new judge read my brief.
In both cases, the court first said that the standard of review in disclaimer case is "exacting scrutiny" (that is, a very permissive standard,) rather than strict scrutiny.
So they are saying that Citizens United overruled McIntyre and ACLF and Watchtower on this point, which is a possible interpretation, although CU never says it is doing this.
They then conclude that disclaimer censorship furthers some important government interests - which it does - and uphold the statutes.
In my view, CU is better read narrowly, as requiring disclaimers for previously banned speech by corporations,and not overturing 50 years of precedents based on Talley, such as Tornillo and Wooley. But CU is ambiguous on this point,and I could be wrong.
Part of what I find objectionable about these cases is not just that they come to what I think is the wrong conclusion, but they do so with little analysis or awareness of the controlling precedents on the other side.
"Finally, we agree with the district court that 'Citizens United has effectively disposed of any attack on Maine's attribution and disclaimer requirements.'... The disclaimer and attribution requirements are, on their face, unquestionably constitutional." Footnote
It's the unquestionably that irks me,since they are wrong, I submitted a brief showing where they are wrong,and they chose to put it in the trash.
I have not read the plaintiffs' briefs, so I don't know how competently the issue was before the court.
I am aware that there is a winging tone to this post,and I should re-write it.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
TN state senator Ketron has written this editorial in favor of voter ID.
It starts off with two and a half lies.
Tennesseans are required to show photo identification for everything from making a purchase at the mall or boarding a plane to cashing a check, and we do it without complaint.
At the mall, I can pay cash. At the airport, I have a right to fly with no ID, unless I'm the pilot. At the bank, it is up to the bank whether or not to require ID. They usually don't when I know the teller. Without complaint? Perhaps Senator Ketron hasn't met my ex-wife.
Voter ID is useful, if the GOP wants to position itself as the friend of red tape, solving problems by throwing taxpayers' money at them, and harassing the little guy.
I thought that was Obama's gig.
The Tennessee version of the bill allows for absentee balloting as an option, so it would probably be upheld in court like in Michigan. By expanding absentee balloting, this bill makes election fraud easier, while making voting more of a hassle for honest voters.
He identifies two kinds of voter fraud that voter ID isn't needed to fix, voting by felons and voting in multiple states.
He concludes with another lie: "It only takes one illegal vote to negate your vote!" When I recently voted, there were 20 categories to vote in. Some were yes/no options, or only listed two candidates, but others were multiple choice. The changes of someone exactly negating my ballot are about as good as winning the lottery.
DNJ.com's web site isn't letting me leave a comment, so this is that comment.
cc:sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov
It starts off with two and a half lies.
Tennesseans are required to show photo identification for everything from making a purchase at the mall or boarding a plane to cashing a check, and we do it without complaint.
At the mall, I can pay cash. At the airport, I have a right to fly with no ID, unless I'm the pilot. At the bank, it is up to the bank whether or not to require ID. They usually don't when I know the teller. Without complaint? Perhaps Senator Ketron hasn't met my ex-wife.
Voter ID is useful, if the GOP wants to position itself as the friend of red tape, solving problems by throwing taxpayers' money at them, and harassing the little guy.
I thought that was Obama's gig.
The Tennessee version of the bill allows for absentee balloting as an option, so it would probably be upheld in court like in Michigan. By expanding absentee balloting, this bill makes election fraud easier, while making voting more of a hassle for honest voters.
He identifies two kinds of voter fraud that voter ID isn't needed to fix, voting by felons and voting in multiple states.
He concludes with another lie: "It only takes one illegal vote to negate your vote!" When I recently voted, there were 20 categories to vote in. Some were yes/no options, or only listed two candidates, but others were multiple choice. The changes of someone exactly negating my ballot are about as good as winning the lottery.
DNJ.com's web site isn't letting me leave a comment, so this is that comment.
cc:sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Ex-gov Tommy Thompson probably in the Senate race in WI to replace Kohl in 2012.
He'd be a likely front-runner. The 6 GOP WI recall elections are next Tuesday.
He'd be a likely front-runner. The 6 GOP WI recall elections are next Tuesday.
Monday, August 01, 2011
Bit of a hullabaloo over 'Mississippi NAACP leader sentenced in voting fraud."
Mississippi has 82 counties. Tunica county has almost 11,000 people.
The NAACP county chapter is run by an executive board, with titles like assistant to the secretary. In addition, there is an executive committee, which doesn't have any designated functions shown on the website. The convicted person served on this executive committee. To call her a "Mississippi NAACP leader" is probably overstating the case.
Her "massive voting fraud" consisted of ten absentee ballots. She had a prior conviction for forgery. My guess is that this time she got caught,and that she's not the only person in Tunica county to pull this kind of stunt. Still, any benefit to her is probably outweighed by her conviction and jail time. I haven't looked to see whether elections in Tunica county are close, where a cabal of voter fraudsters could put in their own faction, and use it for the usual sorts of graft and corruption.
Voter fraud such as this is real, but it pales in comparison to the 1000 Indiana voters in 2008 alone who were defrauded of their votes when their provisional ballots were not counted.
Now that voter ID is metastacizing around the country, the massiveness of voter ID based voter fraud will go up, and probably no one will keep a good count.
Meanwhile some small and uncountable deterrent effect to in person voting fraud will result,and only some of that fraud will be moved into new channels such as absentee fraud.
Mississippi has 82 counties. Tunica county has almost 11,000 people.
The NAACP county chapter is run by an executive board, with titles like assistant to the secretary. In addition, there is an executive committee, which doesn't have any designated functions shown on the website. The convicted person served on this executive committee. To call her a "Mississippi NAACP leader" is probably overstating the case.
Her "massive voting fraud" consisted of ten absentee ballots. She had a prior conviction for forgery. My guess is that this time she got caught,and that she's not the only person in Tunica county to pull this kind of stunt. Still, any benefit to her is probably outweighed by her conviction and jail time. I haven't looked to see whether elections in Tunica county are close, where a cabal of voter fraudsters could put in their own faction, and use it for the usual sorts of graft and corruption.
Voter fraud such as this is real, but it pales in comparison to the 1000 Indiana voters in 2008 alone who were defrauded of their votes when their provisional ballots were not counted.
Now that voter ID is metastacizing around the country, the massiveness of voter ID based voter fraud will go up, and probably no one will keep a good count.
Meanwhile some small and uncountable deterrent effect to in person voting fraud will result,and only some of that fraud will be moved into new channels such as absentee fraud.
